Vehicle operation by persons under the influence of alcohol is a well known safety hazard in the United States and throughout the world. Thousands of deaths per year in the United States are attributable to drivers operating vehicles under the influence of alcohol. To address this problem, the state of Arizona, like most states, has established laws that criminalize operation of a vehicle and other machinery with a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) greater than a preset value (e.g., 0.08% BAC).
Once a person has received a citation for driving under the influence of alcohol, and depending on the outcome of their court case, they may be required to submit to test via a monitoring device to prove that they are not drinking. These tests may be required to be performed in the home, the car, and even randomly during the day. The monitoring devices come in many forms and are commercially available from a number of companies.
One such monitoring device is commonly known as the breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (“BIID” or “IID”) and/or systems. These IIDs have been developed to be directly connected to a vehicle's ignition system and are designed to prevent automobiles and other machinery from being operated by inebriated individuals. To reduce the rate of recidivism of driving under the influence, the state of Arizona and other states require the installation of an IID in the vehicle and other machinery of individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.
IIDs may comprise semiconductor sensors, commonly referred to as a Taguchi cell, infrared absorption sensing systems, and/or fuel cells to sense and quantify the amount of alcohol in a driver's breath. Most modern IIDs use an ethanol-specific fuel cell for a sensor. See U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,487,055, 6,026,674, 6,167,746, and/or 7,204,335. A fuel cell sensor is an electrochemical device in which alcohol undergoes a chemical oxidation reaction at a catalytic electrode surface (platinum) to generate an electric current. This current is then measured and converted to an alcohol equivalent reading. Although fuel cell technology is not as accurate or reliable as infrared spectroscopy technology used in evidentiary breathalyzers, they are less expensive and specifically tailored to quantify ethyl alcohol (drinking alcohol). Among manufacturers of IIDs are Smart Start Inc., LifeSafer Interlock, SOS, Ignition Interlock Systems, Intoxalock and Monitech. A list of federally-approved IID devices is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) in its NHTSA Conforming Products List.
Typically, in order to start a vehicle equipped with an HD, the driver must first blow into the breath analyzer installed in the vehicle or machinery. Conventional IIDs measure the alcohol content of the breath and calculate BAC readings on the alcohol content of gas present in the alveoli of the lungs by approximating, through the use of software algorithms, the alcohol content in the bloodstream. If the driver's BAC exceeds a preset limit, the vehicle's ignition is disabled and the vehicle is rendered inoperable. If the driver's BAC is below the preset limit, ignition is permitted and the vehicle may be started. Exemplary ignition interlock devices that utilize breath analyzers are described in, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,780,311, 3,824,537, 3,831,707, 4,592,443, and 4,697,666.
Unfortunately, individuals required to use IIDs have become increasingly sophisticated in attempting to trick the device to register false negatives and, in turn, to allow them to drive intoxicated. For example, individuals have been known to have a sober passenger blow into the device and/or use bogus gas samples from balloons or bicycle pumps. Accordingly, the IIDs have become increasingly sophisticated in ensuring that the person providing a breath sample is the person operating the vehicle or machinery. Routinely, IIDs will require a negative pressure (sucking), a positive pressure (blowing), a series of blowing and/or sucking by the operator, and/or retesting while operating the equipment or vehicle. Another deterrent is the Random Rolling Retest. These are random times when the operator is required to provide additional breath samples. This prevents Drinking while driving. Another reason for this is to ensure that an individual cannot have another person provide the first sample to get the car started and then drive home without that person. Most Manufactures set them from within the first 5 to 15 minutes then every 30 to 60 minutes.
Similarly, some of the more onerous IIDs require secondary testing and verification of identity by the operator. For example, along with a breath sample analysis, U.S. Pat. No. 4,158,198 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of the actual driving by way of a “steady control task” for a designated period of time; U.S. Pat. No. 4,645,939 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of reflexes using a sequence of time intervals; U.S. Pat. No. 4,723,625 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of reflexes using a series of test buttons; U.S. Pat. No. 4,738,333 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of physical tasks, to confirm identity of the driver; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,748,792 and/or United States Patent Publication No. 20070144812 discloses IIDs, which incorporate video cameras to photograph the person giving a breath sample.
While the internal hardware and the function of these monitoring devices are well known in the art, the software used to run, maintain, and report BAC results to the courts and government agencies is not well known. This is due to the fact that the software is typically maintained under trade secret either by the manufacturers of the monitoring device or the companies that service the monitoring devices. To solve this lack of transparency into the software algorithms and computation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) developed model specifications for breath alcohol monitoring devices, which were passed into federal law in 1992, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 67, Apr. 7, 1992, pp. 11774-11787. These NHTSA standards for monitoring devices have been adopted by most states including.
While these NHTSA standards for monitoring devices require that the monitoring devices operate within certain engineering tolerances, they do not require reporting of false positives, false negatives, device failures, and/or maintenance logs for the installed monitoring device. Accordingly, there is no way for the court, MVD, or any other authorized third party to investigate the operating history of a monitoring device and to validate the reliability of the BAC readings. Currently, the monitoring devices and the monitoring device software algorithms lack transparency and do not allow for an authorized third party to verify and validate tests results.
It is estimated that most common monitoring devices have a rate of failure of between 35 to 6% depending on the manufacture, and maintenance, and that these hardware failures are currently either being disregarded or being reported as a false positive or false negative. The penalty for BAC violations recorded by a client's monitoring device range from monetary fines to probation violations and prison. Clients have a real and vested interest in the accuracy and refutability of recorded violations. Because of the nature of the breath testing methodology the requirement of random rolling retest causes false violations. The “partition ration” or formula used to equate ones breath alcohol level with ones blood alcohol level is to multiply the alcohol reading by 2400. That is to say multiply the reading two thousand four hundred times to achieve the blood equivalent. Because of this breath alcohol is a significant problem. Evidentiary machines used to test BAC require a 15 minute depravation period where the law enforcement officer is required to swear that the defendant at no time prior to the breath test burped, or regurgitated anything in their mouth, as to produce mouth alcohol and provide an invalid breath test. Many drivers eat and or drink as they are driving. Many products that do not contain as their primary ingredients may contain alcohol. Many other item produce alcohol as a byproduct as they decay or heat. An example is that smoothies that are available in the retail environment utilize over ripe bananas because of their high fructose levels. A known bi-product of the fruit ripening process is alcohol. This small amount of alcohol when multiplied by the patrician ration may cause a false violation. Under most current systems this leaves two options. First, the violation gets reported to the authorities and the defendant must try to remember what may have caused the violation. Second, the technician who uploads the data from the handset may review the log with the individual and alter or “correct” the log and the violation, real or unreal, will not be reported. The second option destroys the integrity of the data and evidence as it destroys the evidence chain.
Additionally, the NHTSA standards do not require reporting of time, date, and place of detected BAC violations, nor do the NHTSA standards require that personnel responsible for monitoring the monitoring device hardware and software report the time, date, or place of any changes made to the monitoring device data prior to reporting to the court, MVD or other authorized third party. Due to the lack of reporting requirements under the NHTSA standards, criminal courts have exhibited reluctance in certain cases to admit evidence excusing a reported BAC violation and/or admitting evidence of false positive test results.
Other types of monitoring devices are designed to implement and maintain electronic monitoring (tethers) programs to deal with jail overcrowding, pre/post trial applications, juvenile and truancy candidates, and domestic violence. The monitoring devices may comprise drug detection for inclusion and exclusion; alcohol detection for exclusion; required testing for drug, alcohol, sex, behavior, education compliance; location monitoring of users who may be required to participate in various home detention; and any other type of monitoring scenarios.
Various other types of monitoring devices may comprise a Radio Frequency (“RF”) Electronic Monitoring device, a Global Positioning Satellite (“GPS”) tracking device, a Personal Data Assistant (“PDA”) device, and a Field Verification Unit (“FVU”) device. Some manufacturers of these types of monitoring devices may include but are not limited to Sentinal Offender Services, Scram Products, Sober Steering Sensors, Actron Systems, etc.
The RF device may be an electronic monitoring system that monitors participants who require basic house arrest services. The RF device is used to ensure curfew compliance. The RF device may be light and typically does not interfere with program participants' day-to-day normal activities. The RF device may snap-on or otherwise attach to the participant to provide quick and easy installation and removal.
The GPS device is a device that may be present with the participant in a monitoring program. The GPS device allows for customized levels of control from an officer. For example, an officer may control offender movement throughout the community by establishing inclusion and exclusion zones there the participant is and is not allowed to go. The GPS device provides an officer with immediate notification of all zone violations. The GPS device may also include a cell phone device (that may utilize a cell phone GPS system with cell tower location and other software), which allows officers to call and speak with the offender directly at anytime of the day or night. The unit can also be used for domestic violence monitoring, sex offenders and other special situations where traditional monitoring is not suitable.
The PDA Device includes officer handheld wireless PDA device offers full mobility for officers while outside the office environment. Officers can use a Website to access offender information and also use the handheld wireless PDA as a direct voice device to communicate directly with program participants via the participants own GPS unit.
The FVU device is a unit that is present with the user. The FVU, device allows officers to perform “drive-by” verification duties that are needed in most electronic monitoring programs. This allows officers to determine a participant's presence or absence at any location.